Kluge could have done a much better job. The man knows his stuff. I find it pretty upsetting that he's the only one in the school who would debate her and then he even phoned it in.
those college kids in the foreground "protesting" are pathetic. Undergrads protesting-- its so small time, so weak. Theyd be better off listening to the debate and getting an education before voicing concerns born out of 2 years of adult experience.
If a pregnant woman involuntarily has her pregnancy taken out of her so that that the pregnancy is terminated may she say that the person who removed said pregnancy is murderer or just physically abusive.
Gray claims that it's an ontological rather than a utilitarian question. It's not. What makes a human is not determinate. Try making a list of qualities which are necessary and sufficient for 'humanhood'. You'll either leave out cognitively impaired people and children or include (if you're not species-biased) beings which no one would consider human.
A sperm's "end" is to meet the ovum. A human beings "end" is much greater. A skin cell's "end" and "powers" are not greater than a zygote's.
Let's not be so narrow minded as to assume that a person who is unconscious or has little brain activity is less of a human being. There are intangible realities to human beings that science can never measure... such as the capacity to love.
Dr. Kluge only looks at the human being materialistically. He sees humans as no greater than the sum of their physical parts and only gives them personhood based on their current capacities. He does not touch on our complete nature (we are greater than the sum of our physical parts). At the moment of conception, we have INHERENT capacity. All we need are the proper conditions to turn our "powers" on.
BUT, the most complete definition is evident by it's "end"... it's not ANY kind of tree, it has "oaktreeness".
In the same way, you cannot objectively get to the nature of a human being by simply describing it's tangible characteristics such as appearance. Nor can you define a human being simply by it's current capacity. You must also look at the intangibles (love, beauty, justice, etc) and also it's INHERENT capacity.
- is not only defined by it's tangible characteristics such as color, texture, size, etc. (or what we can tell through our sense). That is NOT enough to get to it's nature.
- it also defines itself by what it has the potential or capacity to do (such as photosynthesize, grow, etc.)
- it also defines itself by the conditions necessary to "turn the powers on" such as sunlight, water, dirt.
Margaret Sanger founder of PP in The Pivot of Civilization 1922 stated-quote- Our failure to segregate morons demonstrates our foolhardy sentimentalism- Philanthropists encourage the healthier-sections to shoulder the burden of indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it a dead weight of human waste. Instead of-aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race we are paying for the dictates of a spawning class who never should have been born at all.
Stephanie made a remark about the KKK? Can Charlie pinpoint that? SGasked In real life there are born people who are poor. May we kill them to eliminate poverty? No. Then why may we kill the unborn to address poverty? Only if we dont perceive the unborn to be human like born people in Africa are human and perhaps in a poor situation. Nothing racist there. Racism demands the poor abort their children; a complaint frequently made about cultural imperialists of the West. What choice?
I agree otaac3. Neither the state nor politically appointed judges have any business deciding at what precise point a soul is infused into a human body anymore than they have counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. All philosophical conclusions of delayed personhood are invalid. The issue of when a human being begins to exist is strictly a scientific one.
A human body must have a human soul - a rational soul. Human life requires a human animating principle, which is the rational soul. A human being with a rational soul is a person since a spiritual soul is the essential ground of personhood. A human being must be a person. Whereas a skin separated from the body is inanimate dust. A brain damaged patient is not subhuman. Are you suggesting there is life unworthy of life? If so, look how far the Nazis went with that idea. Soul departs; dead body.
Be very careful with this soul logic. Aristotle in "On the Soul" had faulty science to use. St. Aquinas took up on this faulty logic. Aristotle believed the "rational" or "human soul" came after the "vegetable" and "animal" souls developed. Utter nonsense, but it has stuck for centuries despite the clarifying science that renders the logical train as bunk.
There are better angles for showing personhood of preborn now.
There is confusion here what a zygote is. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. Finally, this new human being--the single-cell human zygote--is biologically an individual, a living organism--an individual member of the human species. Every human has a right to live.
It is incorrect to assume that every human has a right to live. Would you say that a brain dead person who has 0% chance of recovery has the same right to live any other person. The brain dead person is just has much a human life as each an every one of us. What about other cells in our bodies? The skin cell is a human life, it produces human proteins and has human DNA. It contributes to the development towards our human bodies. Human life is not a requirement for rights in any way.
What grants us rights, ethically and under the law is our cognitive capacity. That grants us the status of person hood. A brain dead person doesn't have any cognitive capacity because his brain is dead, therefore he/she is not a person. A zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus does not contain the cognitive capacity to grant it the status of person hood. People have rights, not human life.
So are you saying that a person who had a head injury due to a car accident, or a born baby, or a sleeping person would be ok to kill? Also, since you said cognitive abilities is what makes you a person, then are you saying that an adult is more "person" than a child?
@Mkvine 'Head injurie' is kind of ambiguous, since the severity of the head injury would make all the difference. A newborn and a person sleeping would still have cognitive abilities. And no you cannot be more of a person than someone else, you either are or aren't. A chimpanzee is as much of a person as you and I.
@Brooks148 Obviously that's not true. They would (eventually) die. Suffering is bad though, so they should be put down (yes, "put down" like the vegetable or animal they are when they do not have cognitive capacities).
A zygote has a gender, a sperm or egg does not. (There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg" or "fertilized ovum" except for the less-than-a-second transition from sperm-penetration-in-egg to zygote.)
So, what Stephanie is telling us is that we must procreate, right? Contraception should not be used, healthy sex eduacation should not be taught. Where is the logic in that ? And what about queer men and women ? Her argument is strongly supported by religious beliefs, and when considering human rights, religion must be left out.
She didn't make a specific comment on contraceptives, however she does make it sound like some contraceptives, like condoms, are ok in her worldview. However, ones like the morning after pill which have the ability of killing freshly fertilized eggs would be on the same level as abortion to her. She doesn't comment on her stance on sex education, but I didn't see a reason why she'd be against it.
What exactly about Stephanie's arguments leads you to believe she is against contraceptives, homosexuality and sex education? Regardless of whether or not she is religious, her arguments are quite void of religion. It's fairly obvious that she does this on purpose so that people won't automatically discredit her, or say ignorant things and generalize about "religious" people. (I'm not mentioning any names, Charlie.)
The organization she is with is against some forms of contraceptives. Also, I had no intention of generalizing against religios people, as I myself am a somewhat religious person. And I was curious about how she (and her organization) felt about homosexuality as for females, that is the consistent loss of an egg that could be fertalized, and for men, well, all those sperm die.
However, Stephanie doesn't need to say anything about her religion in order to have her argument discredited. Her argument is offensive to women, it is racist (did anyone catch the reference to the ex-ku klux klan member?) and anti-semitic (again, comparing abortion to the holocaust, please). I respect people on the pro-life side. I respect people wishing to carrying their pregnancy to term. In no way am I 'pro-abortion'.
I feel like pro-choice encompasses both pro-life and pro-choice and always supports the women's right to choose. Stephanie's argument isn't discarded because of her religion, not at all, but by the way she argues. You simply have to watch the debate, and the way she responds to the crowds questions to understand that.
I heard a little about what happened at McGill. It's not cool when any group denies another group their freedom of speech. Even if you don't agree with them.
The prochoice (PAAAC) debater says a person is an animal with "capacity for sentient cognitive awareness".
My question:
Am I a person when I am asleep? When I am asleep it takes a finite time to wake up to sentience.
I posit:
A zygote (male or female) human has the capacity (not just potential) for sentience the same way a sleeping person does. It takes a finite time (albeit longer) for the zygote to "wake up".
Caveat:
A brain dead person (or the like) will never wake up.
You are still a person with sentience and cognitive ability while you sleep. It might not be as sharp as when you are awake, but you are surely still sentient. Otherwise, how would you explain the ability to be woken up by outside forces?
A Zygote doesn't always have the capacity to reach sentience, as we witness all the time in stillbirths and miscarriages. Potential isn't enough.
We know that many people in comas still retain the capacity for cognitive ability due to the presence of brain wave activity. They are considered officially dead once the brain stem shows no activity, or is destroyed. Whether your sleeping, under anesthetics, or in a coma, you are still a person because you retain your capacity for cognitive awareness.
Anencephaly cases are not persons, it is not ethically wrong to abort or test on them.
I think your definitions of sentience and cognition are not correct and/or confused. Sentience is feeling (touch/hearing/etc) while cognition is rational thought (1+1=2; I went to the store last Tuesday). All animals have the capacity for sentience. Not all animals have the capacity for cognition. Those who have both are people.
Recall Dr. Kluge defined a person as a human with the "capacity for sentient cognitive awareness". Why didn't he just say, "capacity for sentience"? It's because all animals have the latter capacity. I believe he adds "cognitive" because to him a person is required to have the capacity to think or be rational regarding our senses in actuality.
Further, it is this rational nature that makes us human persons. A duck will never have this nature. Human males and females have it from conception.
@Brooks148 No it's not. Sentience is having the ability to feel pain. Cognitive ability is cognitive ability, that is, the ability to think, reflect, etc...
The criteria defined above is sentient *and* cognitive. One is sentient (hearing) but not cognitive (1+1=2) while asleep (non-REM sleep assumed). Outside forces rouse an animal (human or not) because it is sentient, not cognitive.
"A Zygote doesn't always have the capacity to reach sentience."
Yes, many human zygotes die before becoming sentient and cognitive, however, it does quite often happen: they have the capacity. Many people die in comas, but they have the capacity over a finite time.
How wonderful the students who were interested in this debate were allowed to hear Stepanie from the Bio Ethics Inst. present the argument. At St. Mary's Un. in Haifax N.S. and McGill Un. in Montreal, Qc this was not the case. The pro-life voice was drowned out by students hecklers and their screens intentionally blocked. I commend the Un of Vic for this groundbreaking initiative in free speech on abortion.
This has been flagged as spam show
To all the pro-life and pro-choice, watch this award winning documentary and see where you stand at the end.
Look up 180 movie on youtube or 180movie.com
standingontruth1 4 months ago
Kluge could have done a much better job. The man knows his stuff. I find it pretty upsetting that he's the only one in the school who would debate her and then he even phoned it in.
whateverfloats 9 months ago
those college kids in the foreground "protesting" are pathetic. Undergrads protesting-- its so small time, so weak. Theyd be better off listening to the debate and getting an education before voicing concerns born out of 2 years of adult experience.
atthebluebus 11 months ago
If a pregnant woman involuntarily has her pregnancy taken out of her so that that the pregnancy is terminated may she say that the person who removed said pregnancy is murderer or just physically abusive.
ukgukgukg 1 year ago
lol he was so embarassed when he said "pro-abortion"
nongo 1 year ago
Stephanie Gray kicks ass!
Doobrai15 1 year ago
Gray claims that it's an ontological rather than a utilitarian question. It's not. What makes a human is not determinate. Try making a list of qualities which are necessary and sufficient for 'humanhood'. You'll either leave out cognitively impaired people and children or include (if you're not species-biased) beings which no one would consider human.
bahramf 1 year ago 2
I'm definitely taking a course from Kluge before I graduate next year.
bahramf 1 year ago 2
A sperm's "end" is to meet the ovum. A human beings "end" is much greater. A skin cell's "end" and "powers" are not greater than a zygote's.
Let's not be so narrow minded as to assume that a person who is unconscious or has little brain activity is less of a human being. There are intangible realities to human beings that science can never measure... such as the capacity to love.
rukiddingorwhat 2 years ago
Dr. Kluge only looks at the human being materialistically. He sees humans as no greater than the sum of their physical parts and only gives them personhood based on their current capacities. He does not touch on our complete nature (we are greater than the sum of our physical parts). At the moment of conception, we have INHERENT capacity. All we need are the proper conditions to turn our "powers" on.
rukiddingorwhat 2 years ago
@rukiddingorwhat At the moment of conception we are a blob of goo. Conditions wouldn't turn our powers on. Development would.
bahramf 1 year ago
BUT, the most complete definition is evident by it's "end"... it's not ANY kind of tree, it has "oaktreeness".
In the same way, you cannot objectively get to the nature of a human being by simply describing it's tangible characteristics such as appearance. Nor can you define a human being simply by it's current capacity. You must also look at the intangibles (love, beauty, justice, etc) and also it's INHERENT capacity.
rukiddingorwhat 2 years ago
E.g. An acorn:
- is not only defined by it's tangible characteristics such as color, texture, size, etc. (or what we can tell through our sense). That is NOT enough to get to it's nature.
- it also defines itself by what it has the potential or capacity to do (such as photosynthesize, grow, etc.)
- it also defines itself by the conditions necessary to "turn the powers on" such as sunlight, water, dirt.
...
rukiddingorwhat 2 years ago
To get to the nature of a thing, you need to look at four things:
- it's appearance
- it's powers
- the conditions necessary to turn the powers on
- it's final end
rukiddingorwhat 2 years ago
Margaret Sanger founder of PP in The Pivot of Civilization 1922 stated-quote- Our failure to segregate morons demonstrates our foolhardy sentimentalism- Philanthropists encourage the healthier-sections to shoulder the burden of indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it a dead weight of human waste. Instead of-aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race we are paying for the dictates of a spawning class who never should have been born at all.
knarledknuckles 2 years ago
Stephanie made a remark about the KKK? Can Charlie pinpoint that? SGasked In real life there are born people who are poor. May we kill them to eliminate poverty? No. Then why may we kill the unborn to address poverty? Only if we dont perceive the unborn to be human like born people in Africa are human and perhaps in a poor situation. Nothing racist there. Racism demands the poor abort their children; a complaint frequently made about cultural imperialists of the West. What choice?
knarledknuckles 2 years ago
I agree otaac3. Neither the state nor politically appointed judges have any business deciding at what precise point a soul is infused into a human body anymore than they have counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. All philosophical conclusions of delayed personhood are invalid. The issue of when a human being begins to exist is strictly a scientific one.
knarledknuckles 2 years ago
A human body must have a human soul - a rational soul. Human life requires a human animating principle, which is the rational soul. A human being with a rational soul is a person since a spiritual soul is the essential ground of personhood. A human being must be a person. Whereas a skin separated from the body is inanimate dust. A brain damaged patient is not subhuman. Are you suggesting there is life unworthy of life? If so, look how far the Nazis went with that idea. Soul departs; dead body.
knarledknuckles 2 years ago
Be very careful with this soul logic. Aristotle in "On the Soul" had faulty science to use. St. Aquinas took up on this faulty logic. Aristotle believed the "rational" or "human soul" came after the "vegetable" and "animal" souls developed. Utter nonsense, but it has stuck for centuries despite the clarifying science that renders the logical train as bunk.
There are better angles for showing personhood of preborn now.
otaaac3 2 years ago
There is confusion here what a zygote is. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. Finally, this new human being--the single-cell human zygote--is biologically an individual, a living organism--an individual member of the human species. Every human has a right to live.
knarledknuckles 2 years ago
It is incorrect to assume that every human has a right to live. Would you say that a brain dead person who has 0% chance of recovery has the same right to live any other person. The brain dead person is just has much a human life as each an every one of us. What about other cells in our bodies? The skin cell is a human life, it produces human proteins and has human DNA. It contributes to the development towards our human bodies. Human life is not a requirement for rights in any way.
Brooks148 2 years ago
What grants us rights, ethically and under the law is our cognitive capacity. That grants us the status of person hood. A brain dead person doesn't have any cognitive capacity because his brain is dead, therefore he/she is not a person. A zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus does not contain the cognitive capacity to grant it the status of person hood. People have rights, not human life.
Brooks148 2 years ago
@Brooks148
Are you saying that it is morally ok to kill a human being who has no cognitive abilities?
Mkvine 1 year ago
@Mkvine A human with no cognitive abilities wouldn't need to be killed, they would die on their own.
Brooks148 1 year ago
@Brooks148
So are you saying that a person who had a head injury due to a car accident, or a born baby, or a sleeping person would be ok to kill? Also, since you said cognitive abilities is what makes you a person, then are you saying that an adult is more "person" than a child?
Mkvine 1 year ago
@Mkvine 'Head injurie' is kind of ambiguous, since the severity of the head injury would make all the difference. A newborn and a person sleeping would still have cognitive abilities. And no you cannot be more of a person than someone else, you either are or aren't. A chimpanzee is as much of a person as you and I.
Brooks148 1 year ago
@Brooks148 A chimpanzee is not as much of a person as you or I! Do you think before you write these comments Brooks?
bahramf 1 year ago
@Brooks148 Obviously that's not true. They would (eventually) die. Suffering is bad though, so they should be put down (yes, "put down" like the vegetable or animal they are when they do not have cognitive capacities).
bahramf 1 year ago
I've found this to be helpful in your def:
A zygote has a gender, a sperm or egg does not. (There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg" or "fertilized ovum" except for the less-than-a-second transition from sperm-penetration-in-egg to zygote.)
otaaac3 2 years ago
So, what Stephanie is telling us is that we must procreate, right? Contraception should not be used, healthy sex eduacation should not be taught. Where is the logic in that ? And what about queer men and women ? Her argument is strongly supported by religious beliefs, and when considering human rights, religion must be left out.
thenameischarlie 2 years ago
She didn't make a specific comment on contraceptives, however she does make it sound like some contraceptives, like condoms, are ok in her worldview. However, ones like the morning after pill which have the ability of killing freshly fertilized eggs would be on the same level as abortion to her. She doesn't comment on her stance on sex education, but I didn't see a reason why she'd be against it.
Brooks148 2 years ago
What exactly about Stephanie's arguments leads you to believe she is against contraceptives, homosexuality and sex education? Regardless of whether or not she is religious, her arguments are quite void of religion. It's fairly obvious that she does this on purpose so that people won't automatically discredit her, or say ignorant things and generalize about "religious" people. (I'm not mentioning any names, Charlie.)
soupinator13 2 years ago
The organization she is with is against some forms of contraceptives. Also, I had no intention of generalizing against religios people, as I myself am a somewhat religious person. And I was curious about how she (and her organization) felt about homosexuality as for females, that is the consistent loss of an egg that could be fertalized, and for men, well, all those sperm die.
thenameischarlie 2 years ago
However, Stephanie doesn't need to say anything about her religion in order to have her argument discredited. Her argument is offensive to women, it is racist (did anyone catch the reference to the ex-ku klux klan member?) and anti-semitic (again, comparing abortion to the holocaust, please). I respect people on the pro-life side. I respect people wishing to carrying their pregnancy to term. In no way am I 'pro-abortion'.
thenameischarlie 2 years ago
I feel like pro-choice encompasses both pro-life and pro-choice and always supports the women's right to choose. Stephanie's argument isn't discarded because of her religion, not at all, but by the way she argues. You simply have to watch the debate, and the way she responds to the crowds questions to understand that.
thenameischarlie 2 years ago
I heard a little about what happened at McGill. It's not cool when any group denies another group their freedom of speech. Even if you don't agree with them.
Brooks148 2 years ago
One thing:
The prochoice (PAAAC) debater says a person is an animal with "capacity for sentient cognitive awareness".
My question:
Am I a person when I am asleep? When I am asleep it takes a finite time to wake up to sentience.
I posit:
A zygote (male or female) human has the capacity (not just potential) for sentience the same way a sleeping person does. It takes a finite time (albeit longer) for the zygote to "wake up".
Caveat:
A brain dead person (or the like) will never wake up.
otaaac3 2 years ago
You are still a person with sentience and cognitive ability while you sleep. It might not be as sharp as when you are awake, but you are surely still sentient. Otherwise, how would you explain the ability to be woken up by outside forces?
A Zygote doesn't always have the capacity to reach sentience, as we witness all the time in stillbirths and miscarriages. Potential isn't enough.
Brooks148 2 years ago
How about those in a coma or humans born with Anencephaly.
wood9670 2 years ago
We know that many people in comas still retain the capacity for cognitive ability due to the presence of brain wave activity. They are considered officially dead once the brain stem shows no activity, or is destroyed. Whether your sleeping, under anesthetics, or in a coma, you are still a person because you retain your capacity for cognitive awareness.
Anencephaly cases are not persons, it is not ethically wrong to abort or test on them.
Brooks148 2 years ago
I think your definitions of sentience and cognition are not correct and/or confused. Sentience is feeling (touch/hearing/etc) while cognition is rational thought (1+1=2; I went to the store last Tuesday). All animals have the capacity for sentience. Not all animals have the capacity for cognition. Those who have both are people.
Let me know if you object.
Thanks.
otaaac3 2 years ago
Sentience IS a cognitive ability.
Brooks148 2 years ago
Recall Dr. Kluge defined a person as a human with the "capacity for sentient cognitive awareness". Why didn't he just say, "capacity for sentience"? It's because all animals have the latter capacity. I believe he adds "cognitive" because to him a person is required to have the capacity to think or be rational regarding our senses in actuality.
Further, it is this rational nature that makes us human persons. A duck will never have this nature. Human males and females have it from conception.
otaaac3 2 years ago
@Brooks148 No it's not. Sentience is having the ability to feel pain. Cognitive ability is cognitive ability, that is, the ability to think, reflect, etc...
bahramf 1 year ago
The criteria defined above is sentient *and* cognitive. One is sentient (hearing) but not cognitive (1+1=2) while asleep (non-REM sleep assumed). Outside forces rouse an animal (human or not) because it is sentient, not cognitive.
"A Zygote doesn't always have the capacity to reach sentience."
Yes, many human zygotes die before becoming sentient and cognitive, however, it does quite often happen: they have the capacity. Many people die in comas, but they have the capacity over a finite time.
otaaac3 2 years ago
How wonderful the students who were interested in this debate were allowed to hear Stepanie from the Bio Ethics Inst. present the argument. At St. Mary's Un. in Haifax N.S. and McGill Un. in Montreal, Qc this was not the case. The pro-life voice was drowned out by students hecklers and their screens intentionally blocked. I commend the Un of Vic for this groundbreaking initiative in free speech on abortion.
knarledknuckles 2 years ago
Way to go U of Vic! You actually had a DEBATE, and what's more, it was civil! Teach us your secrets!
LM1234Life 2 years ago